If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. -- ~ - '\ Literature on Court Unification: "An Annotated Bibliography . ' ".' ".' c"_.;:il~~d f7:):{;:;;f~Jj 0 olll~ o I I •• ~ . ( l'loIationallnstitute of Law Enf~rcement an~ !=rim~nal Justice I Law Enforcement Ass1stance Admmlstrat1on, t U. 31. Department of Justice " () -~----,~! Literature on Court Unification: An Annotated Bibliography (, " by Susan Carbon and Larry Berkson ./ ( (, June 1978 I l National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice f Law Enforcement Assistance Adl~jnjstratjon U. S. Department of Justrt.~ f \ 0 t '\ \\ National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Blair G. Ewing, Acting Director Law Enforcement Assistance Administration James M. hi. Gregg, Acting Administrator This project was supported by Grant Number 76-NI-99-1024 awarded to the American Judicature Society by the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U. S. Depart­ me\1t of Justice, under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or .. policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. ''':::\ ~ I For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office tJ Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 027-000-00694-9 () o CONTENTS .' \ PREFACE .................................................."....... v I. INTRODUCTION 1 n. BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY. 3 A. An Overview ....................•............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Bo Deficiencies in the Literature . 0 •• 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 000 .0. 0 , 00 0 0 •• 0 0000 7 C. Questions Yet To Be Addressed . 0 o. 0 0 0 0 .00000 •• 000000000. 0 0"' 8 III. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHy ............ 0 ............. o. 0 11 A. Studies of National Scope, and Commission Reports 00000000000 11 B. General and State Studies of Court Unification 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 14 C. Consolidation and Simplification of Court Structure 0 000000 o' 000 19 D. Centralized Administration 00' 0 0 • 0 0 0000.0.000. 00 00' 0 00' 0 0 0 0 0 21 Eo Centralized Rule-Making 0 • 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 00000000000 •• 0 27 F 0 Unitary Budgeting and State Financing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 •••• 0 0 0 • 0 0 29 G. Tactics for Adopting Unification Measures ........ , .000.000. 0 0 30 H. Implementation and Evaluation of Unification 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 33 10 Bibliographies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 36 AUTHOR INDEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 0 00 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 •• 0 • 0 • 37 C) iii J ) ,j PREFACE This monograph represents a comprehensive literature search which was under­ taken during the initial stages of a national study of court unification. We thank the many people who have contributed to this undertaking. Carolyn Burstein, the project monitor, and Allan Ashman, the project director, provided invaluable guidance throughout the duration of the study. Karen Knab and Judy Rosenbaum helped peruse the literature and wrote a number of the annotations. Camilla Linss typed the entire manuscript. Naturally none of these people are responsible for whatever errors remain in the monograph. Susan Carbon Ll>l.rry Berkson Chicago, 1977 () v i\ )1 I. INTRODUCTION Numerous bibliographies have been published Second, federally oriented materials are categori­ dealing with such topics as court reform, court cally excluded. The bibliography focuses strictly on organization and criminal justice, altof which encom­ state court unification. Third, minor treatises, prog­ pas::. some literature on state court unification. But ress reports and legislative hearings have not been to date no single bibliography has examined this cataloged, nor have mere restatements of fact such concept exclusively. The present effort is an attempt as news items, updates, editorials and dinner to fill the void·. speeches. These materials simply do not offer a The purpose of a bibliography is to provide the substantive contribution to the subject under consid­ reader with a compilation of literary SDurces which eration. can be used to examine a topic in question. An Emphasis was placed on including materials of a annotated bibliography provides greater information scholarly and inquisitive nature having broad impli­ by summarizing briefly the content of each entry. cations for administrators as well as interested legis­ Yet standing alone the reader is not enlightened as lators, jurists and lay citizens. The annotations have to the historical development, strengths and weak­ been grouped into nine general categories. The first nesses of the overall body of literature. For this two include broad-reaching state and national studies reason the monograph begins with a brief biblio­ by commissions, practitioners and academics. The graphic essay. It presents an overview of the litera­ four which'follow are much more restricted in scope. ture on court unification, examines its deficiencies, Each contains articles on the separate elements of and suggests myriad questions which are yet to be court unification: consolidation and simplification of posed, addressed, explored and analyzed. court structure, centralized administration, rule-mak­ This monograph does not contain every article ing, and bUdgeting and state funding. written on the subject of state court unification. Rather, it represents a compilation of th~ most The seventh category includes articles which illus­ insightful aGd relevant materials for use today by trate the political process utilized in adopting unifi­ practitioners as well as academics. Generally ex­ cation measures. The eighth contains articles on the cluded are works published before 1%0. Yet a few methods and difficulties of implementing unification exceptions have been made. For example, the sem­ as well as evaluating the concept. The final category inal works of eminent jurists such as Roscoe Pound contains a listing of other bibliographies which may and Arthur Vanderbilt are included. be of use in related areas. 1 o II. BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY A. An Overview Constitution (New York: National Municipal Lea­ gue, 1961); 6th ed.; and President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The concept of court unification has been pivotal (Washington: Gov­ . ~\' in nearly every attempt to modernize state court Task Force Report: The Courts , , ernment Printing Office, 19(7). systems since t'::~ early 1900's. Yet until recently, Countless articles have been published that relate court unification was plagued with myriad conflicting to unification generally. Two of the seminal works definitions regarding its essential composition. Today on unified systems were authored by Roscoe Pound: it is generally agreed that unification consists of "The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the consolidating and simplifying trial court structure, Administration of Justice," reprinted in Journal of centralizing the state court administration, vesting the American Judicature Society, 46 (August, 1962), rule-making authority in the state's highe5t court, 54-66; and "Principles and Outline of a Modern providing for a unitary budget, and placing responsi­ Unified Court Organization," JournaL of the Ameri­ bility for financing the entire judiciary in the state can Judicature Society, 23 (April, 1940),225-33, government. Recently two articles have· been published which The literature is replete with national studies and provide comprehensive historical, definitional and commission reports relating to numerous facets of analytical overviews of court unification. The more court reform in general. While most extend well recent, Larry Berkson, "The Emerging Ideal of beyond the parameters of court unification, those Court. Unification." Judicature, 60 (March, 1977), which devote a substantial portion to unification 372-82, expands upon an earlier work by Allan have been included in the bibliography. For the most Ashman and Jeffrey Parness, "The Concept of a part these reports contain widely cited recommenda­ Unified Court System," DePauL Law Review, 24 tions and current developments in the area of judicial (Fall, 1974). 1-41. ' modernization. Those which are particularly compre­ Other articles which broadly examine the princi~ hensive or illuminating include: Advisory Commis­ pIes of court unification include: Jerome Berg,"As­ sion ori IntergoYernmental Relations, State-LocaL sumption of Administrative Responsibility by the Relations in the CriminaL Justice Sys(em (Washing­ Judiciary: Rx for Reform," Suffolk University Law ton: Government Printing Office, 1971); American Review, 6 (Summer, 1972), 796-814; Robert Hall, Bar Association, Standards Relating to Court Orga­ "Court Organization and Administration," Alabama nization (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1974); Lawyer, 28 (April, 19(7), 148-52; Kenneth O'Connell, the "Judicial Administration" articles which appear "We Should Unify the Trial Courts in Oregon," each year in Annual Survey of American Law (New Oregoll Law Review, 51 (Summer, 1972),641-49; York: New York University School of Law); Larry Temporary Commission ,on the New York.,State Berkson and Susan Carbon, Court Unification: Its c Court System, .. and Justice for All [Dominick History, Politics and ImpLementation (Washington: Commission Report}> (New York, 1973); Harvey Government Printing Office, forthcoming); Depart­ Uhlenhopp, "The Integrated Trial Court," American ment of Justice, National Survey of Court Organi­ Bar Association J oumaL,. 50~Noyember, 1964), zation (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1061-64; and Arthur T. Vanderbilt (ed.), Minimum 1973), and 1975 and 1977 SuppLements,· National Standards of JudiciaL Administration' (New York: Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards New York University Law-:Center, 1949), and Goals, Courts (Washington: Government Print­ Articles which relate the'unification experiences of ingQffice, 1973); National Conference on the Judici­ individual states permeate the literature.